2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion

it is time. wrote:

Buttermaker wrote:

Why would you want to vote against a rule that made XC scholarships separate from Track scholarships? I thought you were a sprint coach?

You thought I was a sprint coach? Why? lol

Most programs aren't fully funded. So imagine when you add 6 more scholarships only for cross country what might happen to those schools who don't fully fund their track team. The richer, bigger schools have the resources to cover 24W/18M scholarships across xc and track.

The bigger schools will tell you it's helping xc because they're able to bring on more kids, but they are pulling a bait and switch. This will only further widen the gap between power 5 schools and mid majors. They might tell you a sob story about how "so many kids miss out because we don't have enough scholarships! Gasp!"

For instance, my school has 8 men's scholarships and 13 women's. If they aren't willing to provide the max scholarship as it stands what do you think happens to the additional 6 for xc? Where do you think that scholarship comes from? Track. Speed and power schools are just trying to find more money for speed and power events and can ignore xc completely. It opens them up another couple of scholarships they were using for their mid distance talent. Also, what determines that a kid is only xc? You can roster a 100m runner in xc if you want and claim he was hurt all fall and couldn't compete in an 8k. The whole idea is flawed.

For the record, this new rule would hurt more than one event group. It would just allow schools like USC and LSU to finally bring on top distance talent more consistently.

jambalaya wrote:

it is time. wrote:

You thought I was a sprint coach? Why? lol

Most programs aren't fully funded. So imagine when you add 6 more scholarships only for cross country what might happen to those schools who don't fully fund their track team. The richer, bigger schools have the resources to cover 24W/18M scholarships across xc and track.

The bigger schools will tell you it's helping xc because they're able to bring on more kids, but they are pulling a bait and switch. This will only further widen the gap between power 5 schools and mid majors. They might tell you a sob story about how "so many kids miss out because we don't have enough scholarships! Gasp!"

For instance, my school has 8 men's scholarships and 13 women's. If they aren't willing to provide the max scholarship as it stands what do you think happens to the additional 6 for xc? Where do you think that scholarship comes from? Track. Speed and power schools are just trying to find more money for speed and power events and can ignore xc completely. It opens them up another couple of scholarships they were using for their mid distance talent. Also, what determines that a kid is only xc? You can roster a 100m runner in xc if you want and claim he was hurt all fall and couldn't compete in an 8k. The whole idea is flawed.

For the record, this new rule would hurt more than one event group. It would just allow schools like USC and LSU to finally bring on top distance talent more consistently.

One can appreciate how you and most folks look at things from their own perspective so I understand where you are coming from. That said, your main reason for wanting to keep it the way it is is because the P5 or whatever they are called these days will manipulate things to their advantage further... you don't want that because, well, you are currently able to manipulate the system in your favor. You clearly must use the majority of your 8 and 13 scholarships on distance athletes ... good for you, I guess. What about all of the schools - P5 or mid-major who don't/can't get to do that? You don't care about them?

We can go round and round on this but XC is the only sport with an official NCAA championship that doesn't have an equal number of designated scholarships. It is the only sport that has an unequal foundation/starting point. It's illogical and makes no sense unless you are an NAU type school (which apparently you are).

Having designated scholarships will make both track and XC stronger because there will no longer be manipulation of scholarships. Each sport will be independent of the other. Like every other NCAA sport.

There will certainly be more opportunities across the board... maybe not for you but for a big chunk of schools... you can disagree but it sure won't result in fewer opportunities.

As for your concern about the potential for manipulating scholarships between XC and track... there is a very very simple way to avoid it... if you are on a track scholarship you can't run XC and if you are on an XC scholarship you can run track but only in the 800 and above (no other events). Problem solved.

One last item... let's say they decided to designated XC scholarships... let's say 5 on the men's side and 7 on the women's side... you can still be fully funded on the XC side. It's just that you won't have more scholarships than schools who currently neglect XC. Jebreh is a good coach. He deserves some scholarships to work with even if it's USC!

Finally, your concern about the rich getting richer... it's happening anyway... NIL is here to stay.

(Oh, I'm a mid-major distance coach at a fully funded school and I have a fraction of scholarships to work with ... far less than you )

it is time. wrote:

jambalaya wrote:

One can appreciate how you and most folks look at things from their own perspective so I understand where you are coming from. That said, your main reason for wanting to keep it the way it is is because the P5 or whatever they are called these days will manipulate things to their advantage further... you don't want that because, well, you are currently able to manipulate the system in your favor. You clearly must use the majority of your 8 and 13 scholarships on distance athletes ... good for you, I guess. What about all of the schools - P5 or mid-major who don't/can't get to do that? You don't care about them?

We can go round and round on this but XC is the only sport with an official NCAA championship that doesn't have an equal number of designated scholarships. It is the only sport that has an unequal foundation/starting point. It's illogical and makes no sense unless you are an NAU type school (which apparently you are).

Having designated scholarships will make both track and XC stronger because there will no longer be manipulation of scholarships. Each sport will be independent of the other. Like every other NCAA sport.

There will certainly be more opportunities across the board... maybe not for you but for a big chunk of schools... you can disagree but it sure won't result in fewer opportunities.

As for your concern about the potential for manipulating scholarships between XC and track... there is a very very simple way to avoid it... if you are on a track scholarship you can't run XC and if you are on an XC scholarship you can run track but only in the 800 and above (no other events). Problem solved.

One last item... let's say they decided to designated XC scholarships... let's say 5 on the men's side and 7 on the women's side... you can still be fully funded on the XC side. It's just that you won't have more scholarships than schools who currently neglect XC. Jebreh is a good coach. He deserves some scholarships to work with even if it's USC!

Finally, your concern about the rich getting richer... it's happening anyway... NIL is here to stay.

(Oh, I'm a mid-major distance coach at a fully funded school and I have a fraction of scholarships to work with ... far less than you )

I don't put the majority of my scholarship in distance events. You made a lot of assumptions and unfortunately I can't take your post seriously anymore.

Track12345 wrote:

To be honest, I don't think it matters if we agree or disagree. There are going to be some major changes in college sports that will directly and indirectly impact track and field. Our votes won't matter, because capital $ speaks louder. Those changes are been decided behind closed doors. We were all put on notice recently. Football and Basketball drives college athletics and there is no way that the powers to be will allow track coaches and advocates to get in the way of advancing their vision for more capital. I don't see XC/TF receiving additional funding overall. However,I truly believe that more men programs will be cut in the next five years. As a mid major coach, I think that the next five years is very critical for us. Mid major ADs will do everything possible to remain relevant in football and basketball regardless of the cost to other sports.

jambalaya wrote:

Packid wrote:

Most college track programs are here due to Title 9 requirements to have a certain number of females represented to keep schools in D1. When that changes - which it will soon, many programs and budgets will be cut drastically. Prep for it

I agree that we are going to see drastic changes due to recent court decisions which have led to NIL and transfer portal modifications.

Sadly I think that what will happen sooner than later is that schools that are not included in the Big 2 conferences which will be the eventual result of all this realignment, will decide to reduce all sports to the club level. This will remove the financial burden as well as all of the headaches associated with running an athletic department for those schools

The 40-60 schools who make it to the financial 'big leagues' will be the only universities with a complete representation of athletic teams.

Oh well, as they say, the only constant in life is change.